Weak references and destructors
brendan at mozilla.com
Thu Dec 10 11:10:49 PST 2009
On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Charles Jolley wrote:
> That looks pretty much right on. Thanks Tom! Can anyone give any
> insight as to how likely it is this might actually happen?
You want me to lay odds? ;-)
It might help to read these wiki pages, in this order:
According to Goals 1(II) "libraries (possibly including the DOM)
shared by those applications" and 1(III) "code generators targeting
the new edition", weak references are pretty important.
I think we'll get some kind of weak reference / ephemeron support in
for the next edition, but we need to hash out details of what's
normative and what's implementation-dependent, and finalize things to
the point where implementors can take the chance to invest in
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
>> I think what you are looking for is this:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Charles Jolley
>> <charles at sproutit.com> wrote:
>> I was wondering if any thought has gone into adding weak references
>> and destructors to Harmony.
>> We are finding that as we build large, long running JS apps, it is
>> very hard to keep memory under control using the built-in GC since
>> any reference - even for caching - will prevent the memory from
>> being reclaimed.
>> If we had a way to keep weak references for caches, the GC could
>> reclaim a lot more of our memory automatically. If a destructor
>> were called before an object was dealloc'ed, we could clean up
>> caches and tear down additional references, possibly allowing
>> further memory to be reclaimed as well.
>> Of course I can implement something like explicit reference
>> counting in existing ES engines to get around this but then we lose
>> many of the benefits of automated GC.
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss